MORRIS LAPIDUS, APPELLANT,
v.
IRWIN S. REVER, HERMAN FIEDELBAUM AND NYACK HOLDING CORP., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1965-04-27
No. 64-704
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
174 So. 2d 459 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4568
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Morris Lapidus appealed a judgment dismissing his claim under Florida's Securities Act to void an alleged sale of unregistered securities. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the 1960 transfer of property from a trust into a newly formed corporation in exchange for stock held in trust did not constitute a 'sale' under the Securities Act because no price or consideration was involved.


Holding

The transaction did not constitute a sale of securities because no price or consideration was involved; it was merely a change in the form of ownership by the trustee with a corresponding change in the nature of the beneficial interests. Therefore, Lapidus had no right of action under the statute to avoid the sale of unregistered securities.


Key Quotes

“any transferable share, investment contract, or beneficial interest in title to property”

Definition of 'security' under § 517.02 of the Florida Sale of Securities Act

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

From 1957 to June 1960, defendant Rever held title to land as trustee for a syndicate, with Lapidus owning a five percent beneficial interest. In June…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
CARROLL, Judge.

CARROLL, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse judgment in a law action brought under Chapter 517, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., the Florida Sale of Securities Act, to avoid an alleged sale of unregistered securities.

*460The definition of “security” as set out in § 517.02 includes “any transferable share, investment contract, or beneficial interest in title to property.” Section 517.21(1) provides that a sale made in violation of a provision of the Act “shall be voidable at the election of the purchaser” and that the person making the sale and every director, officer or agent of the seller who shall have personally participated or aided in any way in making the sale “shall be jointly and severally liable to the purchaser in an action at law * * * upon tender of the securities sold or the contract made, for the full amount paid by such purchaser, with interest, together with all taxable court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

The cause was tried without a jury. Judgment was granted to the defendants, on the ground that the transaction upon which the plaintiff relied was not a sale of securities. The material facts were sufficiently set out in an opinion prepared and filed by the trial judge, as follows:

“The facts of this case are as follows: From 1957 until June of 1960, Defendant Rever held title to certain land, as trustee for a syndicate. The Plaintiff was one of the members of the syndicate during this time. In June of 1960, to provide stability and due to Defendant Rever’s ill health, a corporation was formed and the syndicate’s land was transferred to it. In return for the land, stock was issued to the Defendants, Rever and Fiedelbaum, an active member of the syndicate. Rever and Fiedelbaum were to hold the shares as trustees for the syndicate. Investors in the S3'ndicate were informed that their beneficial interest in the land was now represented by beneficial interest in the stock of the corporation which owned the land. Plaintiff commenced an action under Chapter 517 of the Florida Securities Act, otherwise known as the ‘Blue Sky Laws.’ Plaintiff claims that because the shares issued were not registered, and because such an exchange falls under Section 517.02(1) F.S.A., which defines ‘sale’ as an ‘exchange,’ he is entitled to the original amount paid for his interest in the land syndicate.”

Section 517.21 of the statute, which confers the right on a purchaser to elect to avoid such a sale and makes provision for filing suit, limits the time within which action can be brought thereon to two years from the date of such sale. Here the initial sale to the plaintiff of his five percent beneficial interest in the property took place in May of 1957. Without deciding whether that transaction amounted to a sale of securities within the meaning of the cited statute, it is apparent that if it did constitute a sale under the statute an action by a purchaser to avoid the sale would have to be brought within two years from May, 1957.

We are inclined to agree with the able trial judge that when the trustee transferred the property to a corporation and, with another, received in return the stock of the corporation, which they then held in trust for the syndicate members on the proportionate basis of their prior beneficial title interests, that transaction did not constitute a sale of stock or of plaintiff’s title interest so as to give rise to an action under the statute to avoid a sale of unregistered securities. That transfer was not a sale. No price or consideration was involved. There was only a change in the form of ownership by the trustee, with corresponding change in the nature of the beneficial interest of the syndicate members. We pretermit comment on whether the practice followed in this instance amounted to a device to circumvent security registration requirements or other provisions of the Sale of Securities Act. Determination of that question would appear to be beyond the scope of this appeal.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Wiener v. Brown, 356 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
    …Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1945); United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 95 S.Ct. 2051, 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975); Grenader v. Spitz, 537 F. 2d 612 (2nd Cir. 1976); Willmont v. Tellone, 137 So. 2d 610 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Lapidus v. Rever, 174 So. 2d 459 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). In our opinion the substance of this transaction, when measured against the tests established in law, is such that it is not under or subject to the provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1975). It was error for the court t…
  • State v. Fried, 357 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
    …ewise not so defined by law. See United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 95 S.Ct. 2051 [44 L.Ed.2d 621] (1975). Florida courts have traditionally rejected a mechanical application of the Florida securities statute. Lapidus v. Rever, 174 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Willmont v. Tellone, 137 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). “The borrowing of money in a single transaction between a borrower and a lender, with the giving of a promissory note to evidence the indebtedness, does not constitute the…
  • Lapidus v. Rever, 183 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1965)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 174 So. 2d 459.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw